Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices (2019)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

88 A P P E N D I X B Examples of Partnering Costs B1 – Example 1 | Owner Organization: Los Angeles World Airports’ (LAWA) Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) http://www.labavn.org/contracts/documents/81/28771/RFP%20LAWA%20Utilities%20and%20LAMP%20Ena- bling%20Projects.pdf With respect to cost of partnering workshops, the request for proposals (RFP) for LAWA’s Inter- modal Transportation Facility West (ITF West) project stated: Design-builder shall be responsible for arranging and paying for the partnering workshop(s) and any review sessions. Design-builder shall be reimbursed for actual cost excluding personnel cost. Reimbursable cost shall not include design-builder fee. B2 – Example 2 | Owner Organization: San Francisco Public Works (SFPW) | Source: A Mini-Guide to Partnering http://sfpublicworks.org/sites/default/files/Mini%20guide%20to%20partnering%206.23.16%20.pdf SFPW includes a fixed cash allowance for partnering as a bid item in the bid Prices which accounts for costs associated with the partnering workshops and sessions, partnering evaluation surveys, or partnering skills training. Section 1.5 (titled “Costs”) of the SFPW’s partnering specifications stipulates that the fees and ex- penses of the facilitator and partnering workshop are to be shared equally by the city and the contrac- tor. The contractor shall pay the invoices of the facilitator and/or workshop site costs after approval by both parties. The City will then reimburse the contractor for 50% of such invoices from the fixed cash allowance for partnering. The City does not pay for mark-up, overhead or other fees added to the partnering costs. In the event that the total cost of partnering differs from the allowance amount, the contract sum is adjusted by change order for the difference between the total actual cost and the amount included in the bid. B3 – Example 3 | Owner Organization: Virginia DOT (VDOT) | Source: Field Guide for Partnering for VDOT Projects http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/partnerfinalallowres.pdf Under Special Provisions – Measurement and Payment, for partnering the document states that the payment for the formal partnering kick-off workshops will be made on a per day basis based on the contract unit price per day provided by the contractor. The unit price is to include providing the

Examples of Partnering Costs 89 partnering facilities, professional facilitation, and other miscellaneous costs including copying fees and refreshments. VDOT does not consider subsequent follow-up partnering workshops as a pay item, unless the con- tractor and the engineer mutually agree in advance. In such a case the method of payment will be the same as for Formal kick-off partnering workshops mentioned above. The maximum daily value for this pay item is capped at $5,000 unless otherwise specified. B4 – Example 4 | Owner Organization: Arizona DOT (ADOT) | Source: Partnering 101 A Guide to The Basics of Partnering with ADOT https://www.azdot.gov/docs/default-source/business/partnering-101-a-guide-to-the-basics-of-partnering-with-adot.pdf The Workshop Coordinator Checklist in the Arizona DOT’s guide to partnering states that it is the Resident Engineer’s responsibility to generate a Payment Order (PO) if the workshop will be held at a facility that must be paid for and also if a food vendor outside ADOT’s procurement system is to be used. The PO must be completed before the planner can contract with the conference room loca- tion on ADOT’s behalf. B5 – Example 5 | Owner Organization: Maryland Quality Initiative (MdQI) | Source: Partnering – A Guideline for Project Teams http://www.mdqi.org/images/stories/mdqi_documents/Partnering/2015partneringmanual.pdf Under “Partnering Costs,” Maryland DOT’s MdQI Partnering Guidebook states that the cost for the partnering kick-off meeting, including fees for facilitators and facilities, will be shared by the district office and the contractor. It incentivizes new prime contractors and contractors who have not part- nered before by offering to pay all costs associated with the partnering kick-off meeting. Eligible costs for billing include the fee and expenses of the room rental for the meeting, facilitator’s fees, and refreshments for all meeting participants. The guidelines for its Department of Budget and Man- agement (DBAM) should be followed for any refreshments provided at the kick-off, intermediate, or close-out meetings. Costs for each participant, such as overnight lodging, travel expenses, payroll, benefits, etc., are not reimbursed. B6 – Example 6 | Owner Organization: Caltrans (California DOT) | Source: Field Guide to Partnering on Caltrans Construction Projects http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/partnering/documents/Field_Guide_to_Partnering_on_Caltrans_Construction_Pro- jects_final.pdf Caltrans Partnering Standard Specifications Section 5-1.09D titled ‘Payment’ states that California DOT (Caltrans) shall reimburse the contractor for: • 50% of partnering workshops and sessions based on facilitator and workshop site cost • 50% of monthly partnering evaluation survey service cost, partnering skills development trainer and training site cost The Engineer is to determine the costs based on invoice prices minus any available or offered dis- counts. Caltrans does not pay mark-ups on these costs. It also does not pay for wages, travel ex- penses, or other costs associated with the partnering workshops and sessions, monthly partnering evaluation surveys, and training in partnering skills development.

90 Guidebook for Integrating Collaborative Partnering into Traditional Airport Practices B7 – Example 7 | Owner Organization: Florida DOT (FDOT) | Source: FDOT July 2017 Workbook – Standard Specifications http://www.fdot.gov/programmanagement/Implemented/Workbooks/JulWorkbook2017/Files/SP0080306.pdf Under Special Provisions of FDOT’s 2017 Standard Specifications, Article 8-3.6, titled “Prosecution of Work – Partnering” assigns a non-bid pay item for a Lump Sum amount established for partnering. The scope of work for the contractor includes: • Creating the Partnering Charter and a partnering action plan to identify and achieve partner- ing goals via the kick-off partnering meeting and subsequent workshops throughout the du- ration of the project. The contractor is to determine the agenda, duration, location, time, and attendees for these workshops. • He/ She is also to select a partnering facilitator from among the Department’s approved list of facilitators maintained by the State Construction Office. FDOT will reimburse the contractor based on actual invoice amounts for the following costs associ- ated with partnering: a. Meeting room. b. Facilitator fees. c. Travel expenses of the facilitator. FDOT does not reimburse the contractor for any other expenses. Payment is the actual cost pro- rated as a percent of the Lump Sum amount.